This is outrageous. This is public money and we have a right to know just how much public servants are paid. We know their salaries and thus should be entitled to know how much they get paid off.

Pete Sheffield left an annotation (10 February 2012)

Surely it should not be a problem getting this info ? After all the new Leader wants openness and transparency. In fact he himself is asking the same questions being asked here.

You presume that the officers are working with the Leader of the Council. They work for him… but not necessarily with him. 

You may be interested in the leaked email exchange about the library report where Bill Norman seems not to be forward in sharing information with Mr Green. Mr Green seems understandably rather irate. 

http://blogs.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/da…

It may be on John Brace’s blog.. but I have read the larger exchange which was quite entertaining.

I placed a call with Mr Tour today to check on progress with this request.

I was informed that he was “in a meeting”. I left my number for him to call me back with any news, but he failed to return the call.

Time’s now up on this request and I will be placing an appeal with the Information Commissioner, along with extensive background details in support of the appeal. I believe there is a compelling public interest element in this case – one that presses for early and detailed disclosure. I do not agree that there are ‘complexities’.

I believe Wirral Council are once again completely out of order, dragging their feet in a situation where it now seems increasingly likely that two abusive senior officers, instead of being faced with gross misconduct charges, may have been handsomely rewarded and shielded for their part in up to 9 years of systematic learning disabled abuse.

The local public place trust in their public servants to act fairly, displaying moral fibre and in defence of the public interest.

We are yet to witness any accountability where these two officers are concerned.

It is all too common that the only way to gain transparency from WBC is via the ICO.

It’s a shame I didn’t know about this the day before yesterday, as Surjit Tour crept in late and sat next to my wife. He did make two apologies for being fifteen minutes late though. 
http://johnbrace.com/2012/03/20/licensin… . Personally I don’t like the way councillors are so creepy towards him, but as he’s the head of Legal and Member (Member = in the main councillor) I suppose that’s why! You’d probably get more sense out of AKA, AKA’s lawyers or the LGA, have you considered making the FOI request to those as from what I remember government contractors are covered by the FOI legislation. It really does smack of a cover up though because the local elections are on the horizon…. as long as the officers can hold out to 29th March they can “kick it into the long grass”…

If you could remind him that he is responsible for 14 outstanding internal reviews, and of the multitude which have gone to internal review due to lateness he is still yet to explain why any of them were not answered on time. 

His performance is much like his timeliness to his meetings.

I’ll think about all your suggestions John. Thanks for that.

Could I suggest that you follow my requests by email? That way you’ll be notified immediately if there’s a development.

Thanks again.

An appeal regarding this request was lodged on 3rd March 2012 with the Information Commissioner, who have yet to respond.

Wirral Council have once again fallen silent.

I see the new regime of transparency is in full swing. Maybe this could be brought up at the meeting with senior officers on thursday, where they are to be reminded that they are public servants.

I placed a call with Mr Tour again at 3:15 pm today to check on progress with this request, and to impart some new information to him. 

I was informed that he was “on the phone”. I left my number for him to call me back, but he failed to return the call. 

I called back at 3:50 telling the lady it was urgent, and I was told he was “still in a meeting”. I said he wasn’t in a meeting before, he was on the phone. Rather unhelpfully, she then told me she hadn’t had the chance to pass any message to Mr Tour. 

The situation has now become rather more urgent – in fact a dangerous (if entirely predictable) situation is developing. 

One of the anonymous departed officers has begun “advertising his/her wares” on the LinkedIn website, however nowhere within his/her profile is there any reference to alleged abuse or the Chief Executive Officer’s admission to the abuse of learning disabled people, engaged in by Wirral Council (see 7.1): 

http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgConvert… 

Neither is there any reference to his/her departure from Wirral in highly controversial circumstances and “by mutual consent”, with the timing (just before release of the Anna Klonowski report) and the strong added suspicion of his/her receiving a large pay off. 

I have now asked the ICO to escalate this request, because without the Council providing all the NECESSARY information in the legitimate and now urgent public interest, there COULD be a potential danger to vulnerable or disabled members of the public should this officer be unwittingly appointed in a senior role by a different Council, public body or service provider in the care sector in the near future. 

We are yet to witness any accountability – not just where these two officers are concerned, but on a much wider basis, for any officer or member connected to the learning disabled abusive practices admitted to by the Chief Executive of Wirral Council. 

This situation is now starting to get out of control and may be getting dangerous. I am hopeful that the ICO can apply enough pressure onto Wirral Council to convince them of the need to act and to act now.

Is Eric Pickles the LA Minister?http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/…believe the Gov Transparency Tsar Tim Kelsey may have an interest toohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kelsey
Cant see it making a huge difference but it may wake them up!

To Transparency Department, Cabinet Office. 17th May 2012

http://tinyurl.com/cqlz99n

“Accordingly, I confirm that a response will be provided to you on or before Friday, 2 March”

Hmmm… it hardly instills confidence in the Borough’s legal dept if it takes them this long to decide whether an exemption under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 can be applied.

It’s outrageous that there has been no further explanation for the delay in this case, and like you say extremely worring that either of these people could potentially be employed in a senior position of trust with responsibility for vulnerable adults again.

Rang again early afternoon to speak to Surjit Tour. “In a meeting” was the answer. Left my number again and asked them to ask him to call me back. Nothing. Rang again at 12:40 pm. “Not in his office” was the answer. But she assured me that Mr Tour will call me back.

Mr Tour called me back at 1:50 pm. I told him about the dangerous situation which had come about, that I was aware of his own involvement in it, that it was foreseeable, and that I felt action was needed to prevent the two officers who had left the council in January being taken on unwittingly in a senior role, which may have responsibility attached to it for the welfare of vulnerable / disabled people.

He disagreed that it was a ‘dangerous situation’.

I remarked that the public have yet to see any accountability for proven abuse and bullying. Mr Tour regards these as ‘allegations’. I said they’d been proven following two detailed investigations. He said this was only ‘my opinion’.

I told him that I’d received an email from Mike Thomas (local District Auditor) promising to look into the situation and see ‘whether there are any issues to consider’ or ‘action to take’.

Letter from District Auditor. 10:42 / 29/5/12:

Dear Mr Cardin

Thank you for your email and the attachments. Have you received any further response from the Council with regard to your request under the Freedom of Information Act, or is the attached the latest position?

Yours sincerely

Michael Thomas
District Auditor

And my response – 11:28 / 29/5/12:

Dear Mr Thomas,

No – they haven’t responded to me. But I contacted and spoke to Surjit Tour in a phone call yesterday, after months of trying.

Worryingly, he does not agree that the current situation, that of a former employee, potentially implicated in learning disabled abuse, being at liberty to take up a similar role elsewhere, is threatening or dangerous. [when asked why this process had taken so long] He said the council had ‘been busy’. However, nowhere within the Freedom of Information Act is any allowance made for the size of a data controller’s workload, or its ability to efficiently use its available resources.

He informed me that he would be responding to me ‘by the end of this week’, and to the ICO, following an urgent letter they sent to the council over 6 weeks ago.

I hope this information helps,

regards,

Paul Cardin

The Chief Executive, who was in place when these two officers departed, has been off ill since February 2012 and has now applied for early retirement. The same course was followed by his predecessor (Steve Maddox).

The application will be heard on 7th June 2012. See following Wirral Globe article:

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/974093…

If he does leave, which is now almost certain, he and the two Social Services officers who avoided censure will be completely beyond accountability for the role played in these events.

The public interest appears to have been effectively sidelined.

And so inability, incompetence and complicity in abusive practices effectively rewarded.

Come to the next Wirral Council/LGA Improvement Board meeting then and ask your questionshttp://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDoc… ….

you can go before or after me..

Thanks for the invite. I’ll do my best to attend. Here is a link to John Brace’s website, which indicates the details of a Conservative amendment, put forward to the Employment and Appointments Committee called on 7th June 2012 to consider the application for early retirement lodged by the now ex-Chief Executive Officer Jim Wilkie. We can see from the detail, that the two senior officers did in fact sign compromise agreements, however on behalf of the compelling public interest I will continue to press the council for a full declaration on ALL points of the above FoI request: 

http://johnbrace.com/2012/06/07/employme…

Paul Cardinleft an annotation (14 June 2012)

After urgently notifying him almost a month ago, I received a direct message from @Tkelsey1 (Tim Kelsey) on Twitter this morning, basically telling me I’m barking up the wrong tree. He said I need to take this FoI request to the Head of The Care Quality Commission.

I will do this, but I imagine I’ll be passed around the houses, possibly referred to the ICO, or maybe to the Cabinet Office’s transparency and Open Data guru, Tim Kelsey.

A month on, the threat remains either ignored or deliberately unaddressed.

Looks like Wirral Council have something to hide here!

“Ever decreasing circles”……who is accountable then? 
Well done on sticking with it! Its not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog GGGGGrrrrr!

This response does not answer specific parts of your request but applies a blanket response rather than looking to answer its composite parts. 

I think relying on the data protection act to deny answering the bulk of your points is a blunt tool and does not apply to the many of the individual parts of the request. 

Structuring the request into its parts may yield better results or passing it back to the ICO to get an appropriate response. 

The wait of 26 weeks for it to be bluntly refused is outrageous.

This reminds me of Chloe Smith on Newsnight last night. 

How much public money where these people given. There, that make it simple ?

There is now a very disappointing response in from the Information Commissioner’s Office. My current conclusion is that employees’ privacy trumps the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable / disabled / elderly people: 

12th July 2012 

Case Reference Number FS50438500 

Dear Mr Cardin 

I am writing to you concerning 2 complaints which you have made to the Information Commissioner regarding Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. 

FS50416628 – Your request for information on the records of senior officer’s personal interests which are held by the council 

FS50438500 – Your request for information on two senior council officers Council who left their posts by mutual consent following the findings of the AKA report 

Both of these cases have now been allocated to me to investigate. 

As regards FS50416628 I have written a decision notice which is currently with the signatory for consideration. 

As regards FS50438500 I note from the wdtk website that the council has now responded to your request, albeit by repeating its initial response to you of February 2012. 

Having looked at this request I have to say that I do not believe that you will be able to obtain this information from the council. If your assumptions are correct then the information relates to potential disciplinary matters. At the least it relates to employment matters relating to the two individuals, and how it came about that they left their positions with the council. This is, for the most part, a private matter between the council and the individuals’ concerned. I will explain further. 

I have noted that concerns have been raised about the possibility of compromise agreements being paid out by the council. You have also suggested that the timing of the individuals’ departure has left questions about their reasons for leaving their posts and whether this relates to the Anna Klonowski Report findings. I note that questions surrounding their departure have also been asked in the media. 

You have said to the council that you are happy for it to anonymise the information before disclosing it to you. It seems likely however that a motivated individual could obtain that information by various means should they decide to do so. My initial research also suggests that it is fairly widely assumed who the two individuals are and that these assumptions are available on the internet. I also note your further comment to the council that one of the individuals concerned has now advertised on “Linked in”. Clearly therefore you already know, or have assumed who this person is, and so any redaction of identity alone would not be sufficient to anonymise the information (presuming that your assumption is correct). Given this I do not believe that the council can anonymise the information by merely redacting the names or the job roles of the individuals concerned. 

This means that the information would be personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that the data protection principles would apply to the disclosure which you are asking the council to make. 

Where personal data is under consideration the first data protection principle requires that the disclosure of the information is ‘fair and lawful’. In general this relates to whether the individual would expect information about them to be disclosed. In the case of a disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act this would be an expectation that information about them might be disclosed to ‘any member of the public’. This is because a disclosure under the Act is considered to be global rather than just to the applicant. When making this decision the Commissioner can consider whether any of the other circumstances of the case would make a disclosure of the information fair. 

The Commissioner therefore needs to consider whether the individuals would expect that detailed information about the circumstances which led them to leaving their positions within the council would be disclosed to any member of the public. If that is not the case I must consider whether the circumstances of the case would make that fair in any event. 

The first thing to consider is that, in general, employers are under an implied duty of confidence to keep personal information on their personnel confidential. Assuming that your presumptions are correct, this information may relate to the individuals disciplinary history or records. The First-tier Tribunal has provided strong guidance in relation to the disclosure of employees’ disciplinary files. In many cases in the past they have found that it would be unfair to disclose such information. For instance I would draw your attention to the Tribunals decision in Waugh v ICO & Doncaster College (EA/2008/0038) available at 

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB… 

Similarly, in Lord Dunboyne v IC (EA/2011/0261 & EA/2011/0303) the Tribunal stated that: 

“The Tribunal has – and will continue to – recognise the strong expectation of staff members that disciplinary matters are personal and to be kept private.” 

This is of course working to an assumption which you raised that their reasons for leaving relate directly to the findings in the Anna Klonowski Report. That is not a proven fact however and you recognise this within your request for information. The alternative is that the individuals left for entirely other, unrelated reasons. If that is the case there appears to be a lesser argument for the employees’ expectations of privacy to be overridden. A disclosure of the information under those circumstances would therefore be even less likely to be ‘fair’. 

Presuming that your assumption is correct, the wider issues surrounding this case can be taken into account in balancing whether a disclosure of the information would be fair. In some circumstances the legitimate interests of the public in having access to particular information can make a disclosure fair in spite of an individual’s general expectations that that information would not be disclosed. The arguments for this do need to be strong however due to the strong counter arguments supporting the privacy of the individuals. 

It is suggested that these individuals are relatively senior council officers. This can also be taken into account in the balance. In essence, where a senior officer is concerned they should have a greater expectation that a disclosure of information about their actions may be necessary in order for the authority to be transparent and accountable to the public. This extends to any severance payments that the council made to them given that this would be paid from public funds. These are not of themselves overriding factors however and the decision still needs to be balanced and based upon all of the circumstances of the case. 

However I must also bear in mind that the information that you requested does not specifically relate to the council’s actions or inactions which led to the Anna Klonowski report findings. You have asked for detailed information about the individuals leaving their posts. The information therefore relates more to the private lives of those individuals rather than to the council’s accountability. 

Details of the council’s response and the actions it has taken following the report would attract a much stronger public interest argument towards disclosure. The release of the Anna Klonowski report has to some extent already opened the council’s actions to scrutiny, however there is a public interest in the disclosure of the actions it has taken in response to that report so that the public can be reassured that this will not occur again. The issue is where this impinges on personal privacy. 

Although the council needs to be transparent and accountable for its actions, it also needs to comply with its legal obligations as regards the privacy of the individuals concerned. The information you have asked for goes to the heart of the individuals’ personnel matters with their employer. In effect, your request was widely drawn and encompasses the entire personnel process which led to the individuals’ leaving their posts at the council. As a result, any disclosure would be much more intrusive into the private lives of the individuals concerned. 

I note your argument that one of the individuals concerned now appears to be advertising on Linked In’ however this not an issue which we are able to consider as relevant to the disclosure of the information that you have asked for in this case. 

Balancing the above, I do not believe that a strong enough case can be made for the disclosure of the information to be ‘fair’ to the individuals concerned. In the terms of the Data Protection Act, the legitimate interests of the public in having access to that information do not override the fact that a disclosure would be an unwarranted intrusion into their private lives and affairs. 

I realise that you will be disappointed that you are not able to obtain all of the information which you have asked for. Whilst I accept that if your analysis is correct there are certainly legitimate public interest arguments for some information to be disclosed, there are however also very strong arguments for information relating to an individual’s performance, personal privacy and their personal, private dealings with their employer which counterbalance, and override these interests in this case. 

Having said this, there may be a stronger case for the council to disclose any severance payments which it has made. The Accounts and Audit (Amendment No. 2) (England) Regulations 2009 require local authorities to publish severance payments for staff earning over £50,000, and in respect of those earning over £150,000, to publish both the amount and the name of the individual. I have therefore written to the council and asked it to let me know whether it is obliged by these regulations to publish any amounts paid to the individuals as severance payments, and if so, when it intends to make this information available. I will write to you again regarding this once I have received the council’s response. 

Yours sincerely

[name of public servant removed] 
Senior Case Officer

It may be that both the officers that you requested the information about.. have been having a look on your LinkedIn profile. Maybe you could ask them direct?

“It may be that both the officers that you requested the information about.. have been having a look on your LinkedIn profile. Maybe you could ask them direct?” 

The officers as two individuals are under no obligation to respond as they aren’t covered by the FOIA legislation as they’ve left the employment of Wirral Council. 

The issue was brought up by the Tories during the former Chief Executive/Head of Paid Service’s early retirement.

A detailed running commentary on this situation is being kept here:

https://wirralinittogether.blog/2012/05/20/departure-of-two-senior-officers-and-now-a-chief-executive-officer-from-wirral-council/

Paul Cardinleft an annotation ( 1 September 2012)

Following email received from the ICO case officer: 

30th August 2012 

Case Reference Number FS50438500 

Dear Mr Cardin 

Thank you for your email. I have been waiting for a copy of the withheld information from Wirral Council. I received a response on 21 August 2012 and am therefore currently drafting a decision notice on your complaint. 

I hope that this is helpful to you. 

Yours sincerely 

Senior Case Officer 

….Wirral Council had him waiting around a month. I’m hopeful there may be a decision notice on this, arriving next week.

---

14th September and still nothing from the ICO. I await their decision notice before I consider my next move in the process. 

On a related issue, Angela Eagle MP and Mike Smith of the Equality and Human Rights Commission will be looking into instances of disability discrimination committed by Wirral Council.

https://wirralinittogether.blog/2012/07/24/disability-discrimination-at-wirral-council-angela-eagles-role-and-more/

Paul Cardin left an annotation ( 1 October 2012)

“and therefore require careful thought and analysis.” 

So, don’t worry Wirral Council ICO can do your thinking for you! 😉

I have been a victim of WBC corruption – the senior 2 officers mentioned have had a murky past, working for DASS. Their delaying tactics, to suppress the truth coming out & reaching the public, is well known and understood. They try thier best to preserve their insular policy to keep their suspicious dealings and conduct within. 

FB

” They try thier best to preserve their insular policy to keep their suspicious dealings and conduct within” and away from their line managers, their managers, the politicians, the press and the public.

You’d think Wirral Council worked to Chatham House rules, by their reluctance to release names two of their former senior employees!

Re-read the request and you’ll find you later amended the request and changed paragraph 4 to request the information (some of which) they’ve now released.

Long way to go yet.

Quote… “…given as part of a leaving package.”

I made this request and I KNOW precisely what I’m after here. The council haven’t provided a single thing I’ve asked for yet… not one.

Interesting use of language and interpretation of request! 
Defies belief! Well done on tenacity!

OMG ~ I had to squeeze that out of my public servants didn’t I? Wirral Council’s failure to discipline these two, and Wirral Council’s enabling of further abuse (by concealing and protecting the damning details inside a legal document) means these two people, if employed in the care sector again, remain a threat to any number of vulnerable and disabled people.

And everyone on the Wirral knows who they are

So to summarise… the two officers (who the majority of Wirral residents know the name of) were initially suspended, then cleared of any wrong doing and allowed to return to work, then found to be guilty after all and paid off with £220k of OUR money, and given free reign to do the same elsewhere?

Yes. And Council Leader and liar (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) Phil Davies chaired the meeting which absolved them of responsibility for abuse of learning disabled people following a sham investigation initially. He also voted to allow the council leader Wilkie, who presided over all this to depart with a big pay off in June this year – after making public proclamations about ‘getting to the bottom of all this’ – which he never ever did.

Is it the employees involved leaving you have a problem with Paul Cardin or the fact that they were given a “golden goodbye”? 

One could make a public interest argument that it’s better to have different people than keep the same people making the same mistakes? After all better to pay a few thousands now to show them the door than £millions later?

Scarlet Pimp, if u don’t know what’s motivating me after reading the above…. You’ll never know. Haha

As explained previously the names of the DASS employees have been made public and some of Wirral Council is embarrassed by the whole matter. Let’s face it Far Right Labour Councillor Foulkes is no longer Leader as a result of how this went and some Labour councillors got less in allowances as a result! 

These two people were management. They are no longer employees at Wirral Council, yet you seem to want Wirral Council to reveal information they’ll fight tooth and nail not to reveal. You know as well as I do they will take this all the way to ICO and then drag their heels some more. 

No, Wirral Council plays the FOI game too well, only accountability anyone will ever get is either a public inquiry or court cases or both and by court cases I mean criminal ones and civil ones… but I’ve meddled enough.

This is unaddressed abuse, enabled for the future within a legal document. Loud and clear. 

The difference between you and me Scarlet Pimp is I’m not so easily pleased. 

I don’t regard “embarrassment” or a change of leader or the deduction of a trifling amount of small change from some councillors as a reckoning. Far from it. 

This was disgusting, outlandish, atrocious and contemptible abuse, carried on in a calculated manner over many years, backed up by bullying and harassment. You know all the sordid details. 

I have absolutely no political ambitions, so I tend to fire straight from the hip. Whereas some campaigns are suspect, because they’re partly ‘on message’, somewhat compromised, not wanting to rock the boat too much, not wanting to damage the status quo, and by extension their own future prospects. Such powderpuff antics tend to pull their punches and settle for a whole lot less.

Carry on Paul, 
You seek accountability and evidence of lessons learned….and Wirral are still fish wrestling! I admire your tenacity and really cant understand the “draw a line” attitude. People who were bullied cant just draw a line that easily! There was corruption here which was eye watering and accountability must result. 
All best wishes 
Dee

They seek him here they seek him there
They seek the S P everywhere
Mr. Cardin who is this Scarlett pimpernal 
If he thinks Wirral Adult SS were evil and rotten years ago, then wait for the outing of Wirral Childrens SS of today 2012.
These people are worst then ever, all our children of Wirral could soon be suffering and become victims of their vile corruption cover-ups and incompetence.
This is about vunerable childrens actual lives Paul not just abuse.
Let Scarlett investigate and comment on the real evil that is Wirral SS of 2012 not years ago.
You all might have stopped the abuse of adults whilst unwittingly missing the Children’s plight of today. They need your help NOW!!!!!!

****NOTE*** As forecast by John Hannigan, Wirral Council Children’s Services later plunged into the mire, went through a public scandal, underwent a serious case review which was rendered SECRET, and was inspected by  OFSTED and deemed INADEQUATE. A number of senior officers and councillors were forced to fall on their swords.

“The difference between you and me Scarlet Pimp is I’m not so easily pleased. ” 

Well put it this way, when you’ve seen violence used against your family and you’ve been made a political prisoner on trumped up allegations (and seen the same done to close family) you may realise that the prejudice towards those with a disability is so deeply entrenched in the public sector on Merseyside that it’s difficult to know where to start to change it. 

“I don’t regard “embarrassment” or a change of leader or the deduction of a trifling amount of small change from some councillors as a reckoning. Far from it. ” 

Leaders set the culture of an organisation, a culture developed amongst the political class that allowed this to happen on a rationale I find hard to put into writing. Even after some councillors were retrained they carried on with abuses of power and showing their prejudices as clear as day in plain sight. Some display attitudes at times that are so old-fashioned I wonder if I’ve gone back in time. 

“This was disgusting, outlandish, atrocious and contemptible abuse, carried on in a calculated manner over many years, backed up by bullying and harassment. You know all the sordid details. ” 

Sadly, due to the way I’ve been treated (which is in no way meant to minimise the way others have been treated), I seem to be heading inexorably down a path that leads to somewhat problematic personal consequences. 

“I have absolutely no political ambitions, so I tend to fire straight from the hip. Whereas some campaigns are suspect, because they’re partly ‘on message’, somewhat compromised, not wanting to rock the boat too much, not wanting to damage the status quo, and by extension their own future prospects. Such powderpuff antics tend to pull their punches and settle for a whole lot less.” 

Such ideological crusades you are entitled to persue if you so wish, but I went “off message” a long, long time ago, maybe the message to me even got lost in the post. As to powderpuff antics, I haven’t used powderpuff since my days on the stage at the Glenda Jackson theatre, but then this whole sorry saga does have its share of drama queens, who have done their best to shed crocodile tears and blame others when the finger of blame is pointed at them.

Here is a link to an article, setting out what I feel is the background and true motivation behind Wirral Council’s very poor response times. 

Notably, there are just 2 people dedicated to Freedom of Information and Data at this council (one professional and one admin assistant) – which says it all really. 

http://wirralinittogether.wordpress.blog/2012/09/03/abusive-wirral-council-slyly-blames-10-members-of-the-public-for-its-woeful-foi-performance/

June 2018. 
As predicted, both of these proven abusers have secured senior roles in “caring” positions. 

Mike Fowler at the charity Brook Young People 

https://wirralinittogether.blog/2015/07/…

Maura Noone as Head of Adult Social Care at Reading Council 

https://wirralinittogether.blog/2018/06/…

Despite Council, ICO and tribunal assurances, a dangerous safeguarding emergency is indeed now unfolding at Reading Council. 

Both councils have blocked me on Twitter.